ReviewCureus2026
How Biologics Are Changing the Global Burden of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comprising Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, has evolved from a condition concentrated in high-income Western nations into a global disease. The therapeutic landscape has been transformed by biologic agents, including anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) antibodies, anti-integrin therapy (vedolizumab), interleukin (IL)-12/23 blockade (ustekinumab), and selective IL-23 (p19) inhibitors (risankizumab and mirikizumab); more recently, oral small-molecule advanced therapies (Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators) have broadened the treatment armamentarium further. This narrative review synthesizes contemporary epidemiological data such as incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability, healthcare utilization, and economic burden, and landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine how biologic therapy is reshaping the global burden of IBD. We summarize the mechanisms and pivotal efficacy evidence for each major class, and we appraise their measurable impact on hard outcomes, mucosal healing, surgery, hospitalization, disability, and quality of life, alongside the comparative-effectiveness data emerging from head-to-head trials. We then consider an apparent paradox: although biologics reduce complications in trial settings, population-level reductions in surgery and hospitalization have been inconsistent, and the cost of IBD care has shifted toward pharmaceuticals and risen overall. Finally, we address the role of biosimilars in improving affordability and the persistent access divide between high-income and resource-limited settings. Because much of the population-level evidence is ecological or observational, associations between biologic use and improvements in mortality and disability should be interpreted with caution and cannot be regarded as proof of direct causation. Biologics have unquestionably improved the lives of individual patients; whether they reduce the global burden of IBD will depend on equitable access, optimal positioning, and integration with treat-to-target strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.